Re: [RFC] drop owner assignment from platform_drivers
From: Wolfram Sang
Date: Fri Oct 10 2014 - 14:11:50 EST
thanks for taking a look!
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 10:30:08AM +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2014 09:24:39 Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > people found out that for platform_driver, we don't need to set the
> > .owner field because this is done by the platform driver core. So far,
> > so good. However, now I got patches removing the .owner field for this
> > single i2c driver or for that one. To prevent getting thousands of
> > patches fixing single drivers, I used coccinelle to remove all instances
> > from the kernel. The SmPL looks like this, it doesn't blindly remove all
> > THIS_MODULE, but checks if the platform_driver struct was really used by
> > a call actually setting the .owner field:
> Is the intention just to save a few lines in the kernel source, or are
> there any additional upsides to doing this?
As written above, I don't like getting patches removing this line for
single drivers. I already got two and I am expecting more. So I'd prefer
to do this on subsystem level. I will apply the I2C part, for sure.
> While it looks like an obvious cleanup, it also seems to me that there
> is zero effect in terms of functionality, code size or enabling future
Well, the kernel image will compress better ;) And well, it is cleaner.
Why should we set up something if it gets overwritten anyhow?
> I'm all for adding your semantic patch to scripts/coccinelle so it gets
> picked up by anyone writing new drivers or doing code cleanup on their
> driver, but I'm unsure about the value of applying all your patches
> for the existing drivers.
I could try reducing the number of patches. Any other downsides?
Description: Digital signature